One thing [Overloaded] Corporate Recruiters value in Recruitment Agencies...

I was a "Head-hunter" (on contingency basis) for over 11yrs and have been on the "other side of the desk" for over 5yrs. Having worked on both sides, I can understand the frustrations both agency recruiters and corporate recruiters feel when dealing with each other.

Ironically, some of the frustrations are similiar such as response time, communication, content of requested information, etc. We both have the same complaints in many cases, the difference is from which side it comes and who has it first. Either way, it can develop into a real quagmire of frustrating issues that eventually get resolved either by Agency pouching from their client (because they decided that it was more valuable taking out of them than working with them), or Corporate Recruiters black-listing the agency (usually done discretely by consistantly telling them that they don't have any job orders to give them until they fade away...and probably end up pouching from them anyway).

Just as a gentle reminder, Corporate Recruiters have more than just sourcing, qualifying and placing the candidate. We also have to deal with Compliance issues (internal/external), Corporate Initiatives (e.g. Diversity), Constant Meetings with Stakeholders, Training, Posting jobs and documentation on ATS', "special projects"--lovely term for "more work, more hours, zero reward", etc. , etc, ETC!

Because we (Corporate Recruiters) are over-worked beyond belief (especially with downsizing recruitment depts to bare bone), this creates a need for what I call, "Recruitment PARTNERS", not "Vendors".

So as my Post Title suggestions, I'd like to let all the Agency Recruiters know a particular area that can "set-you-apart" from "Head-hunters".

The primary value is information. Since our days are spent (including but not limited to) handling 100+emails, managing the recruitment process, creating and explaining endless spreadsheets for each of our 40+Hiring Managers, the last thing we want to have to do is spend hours qualifying ONE candidate for ONE position (of +40 positions we have to fill YESTERDAY)...especially when the candidate comes from an Agency!

"Head-hunters" to me is defined as a recruiter that sends a SANITIZED CV with little to no extra information other than the typical 4-5 bullets such as availability to interview, salary expectations, etc. and doesn’t do any more work except when requested (piece-mealed!).

What a “Recruitment Partner” will do is send their INTERVIEW NOTES TO THE CORPORATE RECRUITER! When you’ve invested the time to FULLY INTERVIEW YOUR (I REPEAT, YOUR) candidate, AND SENDS THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES to the Corporate Recruiter, it saves us:

1) Time
2) Gives us a wealth of information to process in little to no time, and
3) We can then make an informed decision (collectively with the Hiring Manager or with the Recruitment Partner themselves) as to which direction we want to go in with THEIR candidate.

Notice I mention that the candidate is the Recruitment Partner’s candidate? Because the Candidate is YOUR ASSET, not the Corporate Recruiters. And some of you have experienced “Credit-Junkie” Corporate Recruiters but regardless if they want to take an ego trip and claim the candidate as their own, at the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter to you because it all comes out in the open. Did you forget that the candidate knows who placed them?? So don’t get caught-up in that mess. It’s a waste of time. Your stock will go up in the eyes of the Hiring Manager/Stakeholders no matter how political the Corporate Recruiter gets.

You see, the value of information is priceless to a Corporate Recruiter. The more you can do for us, the less we have to do, and the less we have to do, the more valuable you become, and the more valuable you become, the more we want to use you. So just because you work on a contingency basis, or you fear loss, the worst you can do is give limited information. You limit your ability to make a placement and build your relationship when you work with limitations. Don't worry about the limitations the Corporate Recruiter places on you (e.g. gate-keeper to Hiring Manager), go with blind faith and SET EXPECTATIONS UP FRONT with them! AND REMIND THEM WHEN THEY DON'T MEET YOUR EXPECATION...gently (as you are probably aware that Corporate Recruiters can sometimes have "attitudes" with "HEAD-HUNTERS"). Its up to your savy ways to find a way to connect with your client.

I suggest that the main reason why Recruiters don’t divulge Candidates' contact information up front, and hold information back is due to trust. My suggestion to you is:

IF YOU DON’T TRUST YOUR CLIENT ENOUGH TO DIVULGE ALL THE INFORMATION UP FRONT, THEN YOU HAVE A TRUST ISSUE. AND IF YOU HAVE A TRUST ISSUE, WHY DO YOU EVEN WANT TO ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM? THE SAME PHILOSOPHY APPLIES IN PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS APPLIES IN BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS. ESTABLISH TRUST FIRST, BUILD ON IT WITH SOME AMOUNT OF BLIND FAITH, AND GO FROM THERE. I can certainly assure you that if a Corporate Recruiter doesn’t trust an Agency Recruiter, believe me, you are of no value to them nor yourself. And at the cost of contingency, what dice do you want to roll?

Comment by pam claughton on March 14, 2011 at 11:17am: The corporate recruiters I've worked with have for the most part been good partners, and not out to 'steal' candidates. I've never run into that, and have to think it's rare. Good corporate recruiters value the relationships with their third party partners.

Comment by John Bennewith on March 14, 2011 at 12:44pm: Pam the key here in your reply is "for the most part". I would have to say my most part they are thieves and only in it for themselves.

Comment by bob on March 14, 2011 at 12:49pm: john in my experience when this happened to me a few years I let the deal happen. took their ass to court won the entire fee and received damages and they paid my court costs...in NYC the key phrase is'paybacks a bitch' the 'scb''s even had the candidate lie about when he was contacted by them so its all companies lie and all candidates lie when pressed ....

Comment by John Bennewith on March 14, 2011 at 12:54pm: Thanks Bob. The UK law is so so geared up for this but it is worth a consideration.

Comment by Renee Plevy on March 17, 2011 at 12:43pm: Sorry to say, that when I was a Headhunter, my best information about needs of a manager's JO, came from the manager directly, and not HR. Most of the time the corporate recruiters just didn't have the time to speak to each manager personally to get the "ideal" candidate. Corporate HR recruiters would be limited to a boilerplate given to them, and then sent out to the Headhunter.

Because I had a good reputation in the industry, and an excellent relationship with my client companies, we were very flexible about how I got my specific information. But -- it would have been less stressful if there was less of a contingency rat race to find someone.

Comment by PAUL FOREL on March 2, 2014 at 6:34am: Mauricio, Hello...

Of everything you describe here, one aspect of your relations with external recruiters really stands out:

From reading your post (all caps, Mauricio? Really?) I see you have/had been having a communications challenge between yourself and the recruiters you engage to do your sourcing.

First, if instead of crying the blues here you would instead make your requirements known to those agency recruiters with whom you deal, I can see where you would have more time to work your desk vs. posting here.

You did say you are crunched for time, yes?

Also, you are mistaken -possibly- when you suggest that candidate contact information is missing on a submitted resume because there is a "trust" issue.

It seems odd to me that with fifteen years (finally! Someone who knows how many years they have been in the business) of experience as a recruiter you are unfamiliar with the Standard Practice that consists of submitting resumes w/o contact information.

This is done so as to manage (LOL! You guys thought I was going to say 'control' huh?) the steps in the presentation and interview process.

If we send you a resume with a telephone number on it, we have no way of knowing what to tell our recruit when to be ready to take your telephone call.

We may not even know if you intend to call the person.

So, get off your high-horse and understand that not only has our company attorney advised us to never send a resume with a candidate's telephone number on their resume until we have a in hand a signed fee agreement from you/your signature authority, we also must manage the referral process and cannot do this if we leave it open as to when and/or if you are going to call our candidate for your consideration.

Now, if you know us....and have given us a search assignment....and are ready to receive resumes from us and act on them...we still must manage the referral process.

Why you even post this as a source of irritation to you when after all, all you have to do is TELL YOUR EXTERNAL RECRUITERS to include contact information on or attached to a submitted resume is a mystery to me.

Maybe I needed to read your post twice through so I can understand this but your CAPS tell me you are either clueless, a spoiled brat or have not been simply letting your externals know you require this information.

(You would not get this from me and I would tell you this up front. So you could save your CAPS.)

Maybe you are not making yourself clear to your externals.

Take the same energy and time you wasted here and put this issue out to your assigned recruiters.

Who knows, maybe you would have more time at your desk to do constructive work.

I think they call this Value Stream Mapping or at the least, in your case, Time Management.

You might want to look into this.

LOL, as they say.